Punch Press Repair Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 20, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 614 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of PUNCH PRESS REPAIR CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICUL-
TURAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, LOCAL 155, PETITIONER
Case No. 7-RC-659.-Decided April 20,1950
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Harold L..
Hudson , hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer , a Michigan corporation , is engaged at Ferndale,,
Michigan, in general machine shop work, .princip :^jly the repair of
punch presses for various manufacturers , on a job-to- basis. During
the 12-month period preceding the hearing ( October 4, 1949 ) the Em-
ployer purchased steel forgings and castings valued at about $217,000,
and crankshafts valued at approximately $2,400. The crankshafts.
were purchased outside the State of Michigan . Steel represents about
75 percent of the Employer 's total purchases which are made princi-
pally from local warehouses of Ryerson Steel Company and Jones•
and Laughlin . All steel bought from the latter is produced outside the.
State of Michigan. The source of the steel purchased from Ryerson
Company is not indicated in the record . During the same 12-months,
period the Employer's sales and services amounted to about $828,000,.
of which 10 percent represented sales and services to out -of-State con-
cerns and the remainder to concerns located in the vicinity of Detroit,.
some of which are General Motors Corporation and Chrysler Corpora-
tion . The Employer neither concedes nor denies that it is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. .
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner is -a labor organization claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
89 NLRB No. 83.
614
PUNCH PRESS REPAIR CORPORATION 615
3. In June 1949, the Petitioner filed concurrent petitions with the
National Labor Relations Board and the Michigan State Labor Medi-
ation Board. Subsequently, the Employer consented to an election to
be conducted by the latter, whereupon the Petitioner withdrew its
petition from this Board. The State election was held on July 1,
1949, and the Petitioner lost by a vote of 19 to 23. On August 9, 1949,
the Petitioner refiled its petition with this Board, supported by a rep-
resentation interest of about 52 percent of the employees involved,
which was obtained subsequent to the State election. The Employer
contends that the State election resolved the question of representation
and that another election should not be held within the 12-month
period following that date.' Despite the Board's desire for the great-
est possible comity with State boards, it lacks power under the present
statute to divest itself of jurisdiction, except in conformity with Sec-
tion 10 (a) of the amended Act. No agreement ceding jurisdiction to
the Michigan State Labor Mediation Board has been consummated.
Under the facts, here- present, we find no merit in the Employer's
contention.2
4. We find, in accordance with the stipulation of the parties, that
the following unit is appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All employees of the Employer at its Ferndale, Michigan, plant, ex-
eluding office and clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
- 5. Because Percy, Jr., and Kenneth Boyd are sons of the president
and controlling stock owner of the Employer, we shall, in accordance
with our established policy, exclude them from the above unit.3
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30
days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
1 Our dissenting colleagues find merit in this contention of the Employer on the ground
that ordering an election in this case circumvents the statutory prohibition against more
than one representation election in an appropriate unit per year . We cannot agree. The
prohibition is clearly directed against elections conducted by this agency and is not con-
cerned with elections conducted by other agencies or persons whether acting in a public or
private capacity.
2 See Kaiser-Frazer Parts Corp ., 80 NLRB 1050; Adams Motors, Inc., 80 NLRB 1518.
The case before us is distinguishable from King Brooks , Inc., 84 NLRB 652 . In that case
the petitioner failed to obtain evidence of representation subsequent to the State election.
The Board 's decision in National Container Corporation, Kraft Pulp and Board Division,
:87 NLRB 1065 , is overruled to the extent that it is inconsistent with the opinion herein.
-3.See Rosedale Passenger Lines , Inc., 85 NLRB 527, and cases cited therein.
616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was,
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the!
unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date,
of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work
during said payroll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees:
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether-
or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargain-
ing, by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agri-
cultural Workers of America, CIO, Local 155.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER MURDOCK, dissenting :
We agree with the Employer's contention. We cannot subscribe to,
ordering an election in this case or to reversing this Board's recent:
decision in National Container Corporation.-' In our view, the Pe--
titioner, when it filed a petition with and agreed to an election to be-
conducted by the Michigan State Labor Mediation Board, and there-
fore withdrew the petition filed with this Board, chose the forum'
in which its majority status was to be determined. We can see no,
justification for redetermining that status on the present petition only
9 months later. The Petitioner is attempting to circumvent the statu-
tory prohibition against more than one representation election per
year. We believe that this Board should give full effect to the policy
of that prohibition and not order a new election in less than a year,
where there has been an orderly determination of the question of
representation by a responsible Government.agency.
I National Container Corporation , Kraft Pulp and Board Division, 87 NLRB 1065.